Philadelphia,
April 1st – Captain Romano Tomicich of the seized Italian ship
Belvedere has told questioners that the four craft in the Delaware River were
sabotaged by men in the crew “on orders from the proper authority”.

The
captain, together with officers and crews of the Italian vessels which the
Coast Guard took over on Treasury Department instructions Sunday, was interned
by immigration authorities at Gloucester, N.J. Investigation disclosed
extensive damage to machinery, Coast Guardsmen said.

“We did the
best we could do put the engines and ships completely out of commission”, the
captain said yesterday. “We did not want our own Italian ships carrying bombs
to England to bomb our people.

“We were
distinctly told that our government would not tolerate sinking or setting fire
to our ships in American waters; that under no circumstances were we to do
anything that would in any way harm the American people.

“That is
why all the damage was done inside the ships.”

“Washington
Post”, April 2nd, 1941

SHIPS, from Page 1.

ceedings are not
being considered against the crews. The Danish government has not protested the
action.

The
deportation proceedings will be pressed and, if the men cannot be sent back to
their own countries for lack of transportation facilities, they probably will
be interned in the United States.

The Axis
protests demanded the release of the ships and the crews, and charged that the
United States had acted illegally in taking the vessels and removing and
arresting the seamen. The notes were written by Dr. Hans Thomsen the German
charge d’affaires, and by Prince Colonna, the Italian Ambassador, upon their
own initiative, without awaiting instructions from their foreign offices.

GermanNoteSaidtoBeStronger

It is,
therefore, possible that later more extensive protests may be made, after
Berlin and Rome have studied the case.

The German
protest was said to have been in stronger terms than the Italian. But, unlike
Prince Colonna, who delivered the note personally to Breckinridge Long,
Assistant Secretary of State, Dr. Thomsen sent his communication by messenger
and it did not reach Hull until just before his press conference this noon.

Then, in
announcing that the American action was legal, Secretary Hull suggested the
sinking and burning of Axis ships in Latin-American ports would afford some
confirmation of the position of this Government under the law.

The Axis
notes were not made public, but the substance of the communications was
learned.

Neither
note mentioned sabotage, while each disputed the right of the United States to
take the action it did, either under international or domestic law or in view
of treaty guarantees of freedom of shipping.

FrenchEnvoySeesWelles

The belief
persisted today that the Axis concern fundamentally ran not to what measures
had thus far been taken but to the possibility that it is a prelude to the
requisitioning of the vessels. According to officials, any such step would
require legislation. Nevertheless, conjectures were rife that eventually the
ships might find their way into the United States merchant fleet.

Although
French and other foreign ships in the United States ports are being kept under
close surveillance, Gaston Henri-Haye, the French Ambassador, said after a
conference with Sumner Welles, Undersecretary of State, that he had been
assured there was no intention of taking over French vessels, and that there
was no possible question of sabotage being committed on them. He pointed out
that under the Franco-German armistice terms the ships could not be leased or
chartered.

There are
19 French ships in American ports. The Treasury said that “No additional
seizures are planned – at least for the next 24 hours.” Eight of the French
ships, including the Normandie, are in New York, four in New Orleans, two in
St. Thomas, V.I., one in San Juan, P.R., two in Los Angeles, and two in San
Francisco.

“Washington
Post”, April 3rd, 1941

SecondProtestsFiledbyItalyandGermanyinShipSeizures

In the face
of an American rejection of their first complaints, Germany and Italy last
night filed second protests against American seizure of 26 Axis merchant ships.

The sole
concession wrung from the State Department was compliance with a German demand
that the Stars and Stripes be hauled down from the Nazi cargo ship Arauca,
seized at Port Everglades, Fla.

With this
amendment, the United States maintained its refusal to release the vessels, or
their crews, even after being told in a note from the German Chargé d’Affaires,
Hans Thomsen, that “there is no legal basis in international law” for the
seizures which, he asserted, violate a 1923 treaty of commerce and friendship
with the United States.

The text of
the first German protest note was made public by the German Embassy. Though the
State Department declined to reveal the contents of the second note, it was
disclosed in official circles that the document complained against imprisonment
of German nationals when 875 crewmen of the Axis ships were taken into custody.
It was assumed that the second Italian protest was similar. The German Embassy
described its second missive as “supplementary” to the first, delivered late
Monday.

The Italian
government still guarded the contents of its notes.

The second
protests were handed to the State Department shortly after Secretary Hull had
tacitly rejected the first Axis protests.

Asked at
his press conference if there was any present intention of complying with
demands that the ships be released, Hull declared he had not heard of it in
Government quarters.

He
reemphasized earlier declarations that there is no question as to the legality
of the American action, which was based on a 1917 law allowing the Government
to take custody of foreign ships in its ports when acts of sabotage are
committed endangering navigation.

Officials
described the second notes as “stronger” in tone than the first.

Germany’s
original protest, firm but polite, demanded release of its two vessels and the
crews, and the right to fly the Nazi swastika, in place of the American flag,
from the Arauca.

The State Department
agreed to haul down the American flag but refused permission for hoisting of
the German colors.

When
President Roosevelt was aboard his yacht at Port Everglades last week Germans
aboard the Arauca, berthed nearby, broke out a large swastika flag.

Sabotage
was discovered aboard most of the Axis ships taken over.

The Coast
Guard issued orders yesterday, for removal of the American flag from the seized
ships. The German and Italian vessels will fly no flag while they are in
custody, but the 39 Danish ships taken over in a different type of action and
on which skeleton crews are being permitted to remain, may fly the Danish flag
while Danish officers are onboard.

An official
explanation of these orders was that the ships still belong to their foreign
owners pending any forfeiture proceedings that may be taken later.

Secretary
Hull said the text of the American notes of reply, which are now being
prepared, would be made public only upon consultation with the German and
Italian Embassies.

Informed
Berlin quarters were reported to have said that the seizures would draw
retaliation in “whatever form possible in the future”.

In the
midst of these developments, a Federal Grand Jury returned against five German
officers and five crew members the first indictments on charges of sabotage
aboard any of the seized ships.

The offence
carries a maximum penalty of $10,000 fine or 20 years imprisonment, or both.

The action
followed orders from Attorney General Jackson that United States attorneys take
steps in all cases of sabotage aboard the vessels.

The Boston
indictments were returned against Capt. Ernest R. Heitzmann of the tanker
Pauline Frederich, four of his officers and five members of the crew.

United
States Attorney Edmund J. Brandon indicated that indictments might also be
sought against the captain and crew of the Italian freighter Dino, although
damage aboard that craft was said by the Coast Guard to be slight.

The Coast
Guard reported that every piece of machinery aboard the German tanker had been
damaged beyond repair.

It was
learned, meanwhile, that Federal intelligence services are seeking to establish
whether any German or Italian officials in this country instigated the
wholesale sabotage which crippled most of the seized vessels.

If
complicity of any officials can be proved, it was said, the State Department,
is ready to take immediate action. The guilty officials would be handed their
passports or their prompt recall would be demanded.

Elsewhere
in the hemisphere, where a continental policy of seizing Axis ships was
developing, these developments were reported:

Mexico City
- Mexican marines were ordered to take possession of all German and Italian
ships at Tampico and Vera Cruz after the 2,000 ton Italian tanker was set afire
by her crew.

Tampico,
Mexico – Authorities said the crews of nine Axis vessels seized at Tampico
would be interned to forestall sabotage attempts. German seamen on the liner
Orinoco put up a fight when their ship was boarded, but the Marines soon
overpowered them. Captains of the nine vessels were invited ashore for a
conference, then were arrested when they landed.

Buenos
Aires, Argentine – Authoritative quarters said that Argentina, instead of
seizing Axis vessels in her waters, may lease them. The Argentine press,
meanwhile, unanimously applauded United States seizure of the vessels.

Quito,
Ecuador – The Ecuadorian government announced it had no intention of taking
over the 1,120-ton German steamer Cerigo, which burst into flames when
Ecuadorean authorities approached the vessel at Guayaquil Tuesday.

“New
York Times”, April 4th, 1941

U.S.
Asks Recall of Italian AttachéinShipSabotage

Washington,
April 3 – The immediate recall of the Italian naval attaché, Admiral Alberto
Lais, is demanded by the United States in a note connecting him with “acts in
violation of the laws of the United States.” Secretary Hull said at a press
conference today that these acts were the sabotaging of Italian ships in
American ports.

At the
direction of President Roosevelt, Mr. Hull sent to the German and Italian
Embassies Notes formally rejecting their protests against the seizure of two
German and twenty-eight Italian vessels. The texts of the notes will be made
public tomorrow.

The demand
for Admiral Lais’s recall was the first of its kind since Captain Boy-Ed of the
German Embassy was returned to Berlin in December, 1915, because he was found to
be “no longer acceptable to the Government of the United States.” Captain
Boy-Ed was declared to have had connection with persons engaged in illegal and
questionable acts in the United States.

Secretary
Hull said that whether withdrawal of any German diplomatic or military
officials would be requested was a question which could not be discussed at
this time.

Note
to Prince Colonna

The note to
the Italian Ambassador, which was delivered last night and announced today,
follows:

“Excellency:

“I have the
honor to state that various facts and circumstances have come to the attention
of the Government of the United States connecting Admiral Alberto Lais, Naval
Attaché of the Royal Italian Embassy, with the commission by certain persons of
acts in violation of the laws of the United States.

“The
President has reached the conclusion that the continued presence of Admiral
Lais as Naval Attaché of the embassy would no longer be agreeable to this
government.

“The
President has directed me, therefore, to notify Your Excellency that Admiral
Lais is persona non grata to this government as Naval Attaché of the Royal
Italian Embassy at Washington, and to request that Your Excellency’s government
withdraw him immediately from the United States.

“The Royal
Italian Government will no doubt realize that the Government of the United
States has, in view of all the circumstances, no alternative course.

At the
Embassy it was said that the note was transmitted to Rome and that there would
be no comment until a reply was received from the Italian Government. Admiral
Lais would make no statement.

All phases
of the sabotage incidents are under investigation. A belief prevailed here,
however, that perhaps in view of the Captain Boy-Ed experience, the German
Embassy may have been careful to keep its hands off any activities involving
sabotage.

Meanwhile
signs continued to point to the possibility that the United States might take
over the Italian and German ships, which now are merely held in protective
custody.

The
Espionage Act of 1917, which provided authorization of domestic law for the
Coast Guard to take over the ships, legal experts pointed out, permits the
United States to ask for the forfeiture of the ships if it wishes to, once acts
of sabotage have been committed.

It was said
that this probably could not be done, however, until after the present criminal
proceedings have been completed by convictions, thus establishing in the eyes
of the law that sabotage had been committed. Officials were not prepared to say
that a decision had been reached to make use of the authorization in the 1917
statute and ask the courts for the forfeiture of the ships.

Secretary
Morgenthau said that the question of the final disposal of the vessels was
“under study” by him and Secretary Jackson. Asked whether there was evidence
that a concerted sabotage had been ordered by a foreign agency, he answered:

“The facts
speak for themselves.”

Mr.
Morgenthau said that everybody, from the President down, seemed to think the
Coast Guard had acted well in seizing the ships and that letters of commendation
had been pouring in.

“If they
hadn’t damaged these ships, the chances are that we would never have taken them
into custody,” said the Secretary.

Admiral
Lais is 58 years of age and has been naval attaché here since January 1940.
From 1926 to 1929 he was stationed here in the same capacity.

His wife,
who is an American, is the former Leonor Sutton Evans, daughter of Dr. George
Evans of New York. They have two children, a son, Lucio, who is in the Italian
Naval Academy at Leghorn, and a daughter, Edna, who has been studying in a
secretarial school here.

Admiral
Lais was commissioned in the Italian Navy in 1904. His service has included
command of the cruiser Pola, commandant of the Maritime District of Brindisi,
twice Director of Naval Intelligence and Commander of Cruiser Division 6 when
it was based on the Balearic Islands during the Spanish Civil War. He was
promoted to rear admiral in 1936 and to admiral of division in 1938.

Italian
Officials Watched

An
intimation that Italian Embassy officials were being observed closely was given
on March 5 when Secretary Hull asked Prince Colonna to keep him informed of the
movements outside Washington of the Italian naval and military attachés.

Then,
following the Italian request for the American Consulates at Palermo, Sicily,
and Naples to be closed, the United States asked that the Italian Vice
Consulates at Newark, N.J., and Detroit be closed. No response has been
received, and it is understood that the request has yet to be complied with.
Time was given to the consular officials to wind up their affaires, and this
may explain the delay.

In general,
Congressional comment today approved the request for the recall of Admiral
Lais. Many Senators refrained from voicing their views because they considered
the matter “entirely within the province” of the Executive.

Senator
Lucas said that, if the State Department had conclusive proof against the Naval
Attaché, it was “well within its rights in demanding the recall.”

Some of the
comment of House members was as follows:

Representative McCormack, the majority leader – It is reasonable to assume that
the State Department has evidence that the Naval Attaché was the responsible
party. If that is so, it was the duty of the Department to ask for his recall.

Representative Carl Vinson – I am thoroughly in accord with what the Secretary
of State has done.

Representative Shafer – This is just one of those incidents that we can expect
that might prove our involvement in the war.

Representative Arends – It is just in keeping with the things that have been
happening.

Representative Mundt – I hope the Administration does not intend to use this
ship incident as a means of putting this country squarely into a shooting war.

Rumors
of Reprisals

The State
Department said today it had no official reports concerning the arrests of
American citizens in Germany, of students rioting before the American Embassy
in Rome, or a possibility that the Nazis may adopt reprisals in retaliation for
the taking of their ships into protective custody here. In view of the absence
of official details, the department refused to comment on these matters.

If a war of
retaliation should ensue, with property being confiscated in all three
countries, a considerable amount would be involved, according to estimates
here.

American
assets in Germany are estimated to total about $432,000,000, including
$228,000,000 in direct investments such as plants and factories, $165,000,000
in German bonds and about $39,566,000 in short-term credits.

German
assets in the United States total about $106,725,000 of which $100,000,000 is
in direct investments and the remainder in short-term credits.

American
assets in Italy total about $145,000,000 including $70,000,000 direct
investments, $73,000,000 in Italian bonds and $2,000,000 in short-term credits.

Italian
assets in the United States total around $52,000,000, including $12,000,000 direct
investments, $22,000,000 miscellaneous real estate and mortgage holdings and
$17,904,000 short-term credits.

Seized
Ships Grouped

Five
Italian Craft Tied Up at Hoboken, 15 Danish at Bayonne

All of the
twenty Danish and Italian ships seized in this area by the government Sunday
were safely tied up last night at two concentration points, where they were
being closely guarded pending a decision about future disposition.

The fifteen
Danish vessels, to which most of the Danish seamen had returned yesterday after
assurances from them that none of the machinery would be harmed, were tied up
at the Bayonne Terminal in the upper bay. The five Italian vessels, some of
them so badly damaged that repairs will take several months, were towed to the
Maritime Commission terminal at Pier 3, Hoboken, where they were moored under
the direction of Captain Granville Conway, director of the commission here. The
question of repairing the ships will be settled later, but there is no present
plan to send them to drydock, it was said.

Byron H.
Uhl, district director of immigration and naturalization on Ellis Island, said
that individual “warrant proceedings” were being conducted in the cases of 160
Italian seamen held on the island and that reports on their eligibility to
remain in this country would be sent to Washington. Mr. Uhl stressed that the
Ellis Island authorities were not concerned in the matter of sabotage, but
would question the men solely on their status as seamen.

A spokesman
at the office of the United States District Attorney in Trenton, N.J., stated
that criminal action might be taken against officers or crew members of the
five Italian vessels which were seized at Newark. The attorney’s office and
agents of the F.B.I. are still investigating the reported sabotage and if
prosecution is warranted the case will be presented to a Federal grand jury
next week, the spokesman said.

Italians
Held at Canal

Cristobal,
C.Z., April 3 (UP) – The captain and two officers of the 23,255-ton Italian
luxury liner Conte Biancamano, seized here by the United States Sunday, were
arrested on the vessel today. They were held pending deportation proceedings.

“Washington
Post”, April 5th, 1941

Texts
of U.S. Notes on Axis Ship Protests

The
texts of the United States notes rejecting the German and Italian protests
against seizure of 30 merchant vessels and their crews in American waters
follows:

The note
from Secretary Hull to Hans Thomsen, Chargé d’Affaires of Germany:

I am in
receipt of your two notes dated March 31 and April 1, 1941, respectively
regarding the taking of possession and control of the German tanker Pauline
Friedrich in the Port of Boston and the motorship Arauca at Port Everglades and
the removal therefrom of the officers and crews.

I note your
allegation that there is no legal basis in international law for the action
taken and that it constitutes a violation of the existing treaty of friendship,
commerce and consular rights, signed by our two governments December 8, 1923.
You even go so far as to request that these vessels be restored to the
“unlimited authority of the captains” and that the members of the crews be
placed at “liberty immediately” and allowed “to return to and stay on board their
ships”, etc.

I am
surprised at these extreme assertions and demands. In the first place, you do
not state upon what principle of international law or upon what provision of
the treaty between our two countries you rely, and, in the second place, you
seem wholly to disregard the plain provisions of our statutes which make it a
felony for the master or any other person in charge or command of a vessel,
foreign or domestic, or for any member of the crew or other person, within the
territorial waters of the United States, willfully to cause or permit the
destruction or injury of such a vessel or to tamper with its motive power or
instrumentalities of navigation: and which authorize the authorities of this
Government to take possession and control of any vessel and remove therefrom
the officers and crew when such action is deemed to be necessary to protect the
vessel from damage or injury or to prevent damage or injury to any harbor or
waters of the United States.

Cites
International Law

I know of
no principle of international law which permits the masters or crews of vessels
of a country which have sought refuge in or entered the ports of another
country to commit acts of destruction in disregard of local law and of the
hospitality which they have been permitted to enjoy; nor is there any provision
in the treaty between our two countries which lends even color of support to
any such argument: It would indeed be unthinkable that any civilized nation
would become a party to a treaty containing any such provision or that it would
subscribe to any so-called principle of international law which would permit
foreign vessels to be brought to its harbors and roadsteads and there willfully
damaged and wrecked in violation of law and to the detriment of navigation and
even the safety of its harbors without restraint or hindrance by the local
sovereign.

On one of
the vessels here in question the auxiliary machinery was smashed and the main
propelling machinery was deliberately wrecked; and if the scuttling and burning
of ships in other harbors of this continent may be regarded as indicative of
what might be expected in our ports, it is difficult to see how your government
could expect this government to be oblivious to the situation presented.

An inquiry
is being made concerning other features of your complaint and I shall
communicate with you regarding them at a later date.

The
Secretary of State presents his compliments to His Excellency the Royal Italian
Ambassador and has the honor to acknowledge the receipt of his two
communications dated March 31 and April 1, 1941, concerning the taking of
possession and control of certain Italian merchant vessels lying in ports of
the United States and the removal therefrom of the officers and crews.

The law of
the United States makes it a felony for the master or any person in charge or
command of a vessel within the territorial waters of the United States, or for
any member of the crew or other person, willfully to cause or permit the
destruction or injury of such vessel or to tamper with its motive power or
instrumentalities of navigation. It also authorizes the authorities of the
Government of the United States to take possession and control of any vessel
and to remove therefrom the officers and crews when such action is deemed to be
necessary to protect the vessel from damage or injury or to prevent damage or
injury to any harbor or waters of the United States.

25 of 27 Need
Repairs

Of the 27
Italian vessels in ports of continental United States, 25 of them were so badly
damaged that extensive repairs in shipyards will be necessary to render
possible their navigation. These concerted and widespread acts of destruction
on the part of officers and crews in violation of specific provisions of the
statutory laws of the United States, and at a time when the vessels were
enjoying the hospitality and protection of our ports cannot be viewed with
equanimity. The Italian Ambassador must have overlooked the gravity of the
situation when, in his communication of March 31, he registered a protest
against the action on the part of the Federal authorities with respect to
“Italian properties and nationals.”

With
respect to the Ambassador specific inquiry as to the views and intentions of
the Government of the United States regarding the ships and their crews, the
Ambassador is informed that this matter is now receiving the attention of the
appropriate authorities of the Government and will be determined in the light
of the law and the pertinent facts.

The
Secretary of State will communicate with the Ambassador concerning the other
questions raised by him as soon as advices thereon shall have been received
from the authorities directly concerned.

April
9th, 1941

Italy
Demands Recall by U.S. of Air Attaché

Washington,
April 9 (A.P.) – Italy demanded the recall of the American Assistant Military
Attaché in Rome today in apparent reprisal for the action of the United States
in forcing the withdrawal of the Italian Naval Attaché from this country. The
State Department announced that the Italian Government had made the request for
the withdrawal of Capt. William C. Bentley in the same note in which it
complied with the American request for the withdrawal of Admiral Alberto Lais,
the Italian Naval Attaché here.

Text of
Announcement

The text of
the State Department announcement:

“By note of
April 3, 1941, the Secretary of State notified the Royal Italian Ambassador
that Admiral Alberto Lais, naval attaché of the Royal Italian embassy, was
persona non grata to this Government and requested that the Royal Italian
Government withdraw him immediately from the United States.

“The
Secretary of State has now been informed by the Royal Italian Ambassador in a
note dated April 8 that Admiral Lais had ceased from his functions and will
leave this country without delay.

“In the
same note, the Royal Italian Ambassador stated that Capt. William C. Bentley,
Assistant Military Attaché and Assistant Military Attaché for Air of the United
States embassy in Rome, is persona non grata to the Royal Italian Government,
and requested that he be withdrawn immediately from Italy.”

Admiral
Lais’s recall was asked in connection with charges that he directed sabotage on
Italian merchant ships which have been taken into American custody. It was not
stated immediately if the American Government would comply with the Italian
request for the withdrawal of Capt. Bentley, but it was taken for granted that
this would be done in accordance with diplomatic custom.

The State
Department did not indicate that Italy had given any reason for declaring him
persona non grata.

“New
York Times”, April 26th, 1941

Vice
Admiral Alberto Lais, naval attaché in the Italian Embassy in Washington, whose
recall was requested by the United States Government and who sailed yesterday
for Spain on the Spanish liner Marques de Comillas, defended the action of the
officers and crew of Italian merchant vessels who damaged the motive and
navigation equipment of their vessels in American harbors.

The admiral
handed reporters a formal statement on board the liner before sailing. The
Italian ships, he said, were damaged internally because the government
expressly had forbidden any action which might hurt the American people.

Nevertheless, the statement declared, the Italian Government did not want its
own vessels transporting bombs for use against the Italians.

“Did you
give the order to sabotage the ships?” Vice Admiral Lais was asked.

“My
goodness! No comment,” he said. “I have persistently refused to grant any
interview because I have no comment to make. Everything on the subject has
already been made clear by the masters of the ships.”

He
protested at the use of the word “sabotaged” and added:

“These
masters have simply fulfilled that pledge of honor and duty written in 1813 on
the flag of your gallant Commodore Perry with these splendid words ‘Don’t give
up the ship’. And it is in front of that glorious flag that the American boys
take their oath when they join the Navy at Annapolis.”

Admiral
Lais went to the ship with his daughter Edna, 20 years old, and Lieut. E. Filo
Della Torre, acting naval attaché at the Italian Embassy. He said his daughter
was born in Rome and his wife was born in this country. He does not know what
his next appointment will be, he added.

Of the 203
passengers sailing from New York in the Spanish liner, about 70 per cent were
Germans. Many of them were women and children and all, apparently upon
instructions, refused to talk at the pier.

Another
passenger was Antonio Bustamente, Spanish bullfighter, who has been making an
eight months’ tour of Venezuela, Colombia and other South American countries.

“New
York Herald Tribune”, April 26th, 1941

Admiral Alberto
Lais, Italian Naval Attaché, who was recalled by his government at the request
of President Roosevelt for alleged complicity in sabotage of Italian ships in
American harbors, sailed for Spain last night on the Spanish liner Marques de
Comillas on his way to Rome. The ship left Columbia Street, Brooklyn, with 306
passengers, many of them German women and children returning to Germany.

Admiral
Lais handed reporters a prepared statement saying that the captains of the
Italian ships had “made everything perfectly clear.” It reviewed their
assertion that they had damaged only the engines so that their ships could not
be used to carry bombs to England which might be dropped in Italy and that they
had done no harm to the American people, and then continued:

“This shows
how unfair has been the word sabotage used by the press in referring to the
action of the masters of the Italian ships. These masters have simply fulfilled
that pledge of honor and duty written in 1813 on the flag of your gallant
Commodore Perry with these splendid words: ‘Don’t give up the ship’. And it is in
front of that glorious flag that the American boys take their oath when they
join the Navy at Annapolis.”

When asked
if he had been responsible for the order to wreck the ship’s engines, he
answered, “My goodness, no comment on that.”

Admiral Lais
was accompanied to the pier by his daughter, Edna, but he sailed alone. His
wife, the former Leonor Sutton Evans, daughter of Dr. George Evans, of New
York, did not appear to bid him farewell at the pier. She is an American
citizen, so that the request for her husband’s recall does not compel her to
leave the United States.

WILSON,
N.C., May 7. – Members of the Italian freighter Villarperosa’s engine room crew
on trial with the ship’s master and chief engineer on charges under the
anti-sabotage law of tampering with the vessel’s engines, testified in Federal
Court today that they “had to obey orders” and knew nothing of the United
States laws, but “only of the laws of Italy”.

All nine
admitted a part in the alleged attempt to destroy the huge Diesel engines.

Enrico
Severino told the court that he was not concerned with United States laws.

The
defendants testified that they would be punished if they failed to obey the
orders of ship Capt. Adriano Merlano Bersia.

Carlo
Novello, the chief engineer, said he had orders from the captain to destroy the
engines and that he, in turn, ordered the engine room crew to carry them out
and that no one else on the vessel had anything to do with it.

Capt.
Bersia said yesterday that Count Filo Della Torre, assistant naval attaché at
the Embassy in Washington, advised him on February 19 to be ready to wreck the
motors of the freighter, then in port at Wilmington. The order, he said, was
received March 20 and immediately obeyed.

He said he
did not know he was committing an unlawful act, but “was trying to do something
good for Italy”. He merely executed an order, he told the jury, “just as I
might go to the electric chair if I were ordered to do it for Italy”. Also, he
explained, he feared that the ship, in American port to take on scrap iron when
war was declared, would fall into the hands of the English.

The crew
members have been held in prison. Their ship is in Federal custody.

Asked by
the court to describe the treatment he had received, Capt. Bersia replied that
in the first place his vessel was boarded by armed men and that he and the crew
were confined “with common criminals” at Savannah.

Washington,
Feb. 10 – It was merely fortuitous that the President’s assignment to Admiral
Emory S. Land of full and final control of war shipping should have been made
public on the same day that the Lafayette (Normandie) burned at her pier. But
the calamity added the replacement of 83,423 tons to the many problems which
have been given to Admiral Land for solution.

The
President ordered that henceforth Admiral Land shall have the last word on the
“operation, purchase, charter, requisition and use” of nonmilitary ships
engaged in the war effort for those intercoastal craft in the province of the
Director of Transportation, domestic. This means that instead of the five-man
board of Maritime Commission, of which Admiral Land is chairman, one man will
settle these difficult questions. With his associates on the commission he will
continue to supervise the construction of shipping.

The problem
of the shipping sector of the war effort include operations, priorities, labor
relations and supply of the battlefronts. If the war continues to its end to be
fought on other continents and islands, these problems will remain at the base
of all the others. The consensus in Washington seems to be that, because of his
exceptional record as an administrator, Admiral Land was the best possible
choice for a task of unexcelled difficulty.

Some of His Problems

When the
recent submarine destructions of the shipping of the United Nations began in
the Atlantic, the Admiral and his commission had brought the rate of new
construction well abreast of losses at sea. How far, or whether, it is now
below that rate is the secret of the Navy Department.

Some of the
problems, and their attendant factors, which Admiral Land is now to tackle with
one-man authority are these:

1.Priorities. In the opinion of many war
officials, supplies should be shipped in this order of preference: to Russia,
to China and the Far Pacific, to the Red Sea, to the United Kingdom, from the
sources of strategic materials, to the destinations of the various American
expeditionary forces. The position of the latter among priorities is put down
as a variable, to move from the top to the bottom of the list as events of the
war dictate. Admiral Land will be expected to allocate ship movements and
tonnage in accordance with the order of supply priorities, as prescribed from
time to time, with full authority of decision except in so far as, in the words
of the executive order, he is to be “guided” by WPB schedules.

Shipping facilities now – and for some time – will furnish cargo
space far below the amount required to carry out the government’s commitments
to the United Nations and to transport inbound strategic materials and outbound
troops. Admiral Land must work out the best pro rata he can.

2.Operations. The Russians have been disappointed
at the percentage of the commitment to them which they have been receiving.
Some ships have been found faulty and turned back: one was obliged to do this
twice. The reason is that many of the seized German and Italian ships were so
deftly sabotaged that it was impossible to discover all of the damage until
they took a pounding at sea. Other ships bound for Russia have had setbacks
either because they were necessarily in the hands of green crews, or because
they were strange vessels in the hands of experienced crews familiar with other
types.

These causes, plus the overall one that shipping space does not
match commitments, are largely responsible for the disappointment of the
Russians. Admiral Land must correct all these things as best he can.

Spirit of Urgency Lacking

3.Labor. This condition in the shipyards is now
peaceable. But here, as in other sectors of the war effort, supervisors
complain that there is a lack of the spirit of urgency and alarm which would,
it is held, produce even more satisfactory results.

The Navy yards and the private yards are loaded with work as ever
before, and this includes building, conversion and repairs (of United Nations
vessels as well as of our own). Conversion is the hardest job of the three. To
change a transport into a combatant-carrier, for example, means that three
times as much cubic space and five times as much weight per man must be
arranged. This has required the transfer of the best shipyard workmen to
conversion and put construction and repairs, except in Navy yards, into the
hands of the less able workers. Admiral Land must somehow maintain the best
possible standards of production in these labor areas.

4.Oil Supply. Since enemy submarines have been
devoting so much of their destructive attention to tankers, the Admiral, with
other officials who direct the supply of fuel to ships and planes, must grapple
with the prospect of a vital shortage in these essential sinews of war.

This gives
a general idea of the task to which his full and final authority is to be
addressed, subject to the reservations noted above and to such revisions of
priority, etc. as the President may from time to time prescribe.

So long as
shipping remains the lifeline of the war effort – which will be as long as the
war can be held away from the North American continent – no task will be more
important or more difficult than that which has been assigned to Admiral Land.

He begins
the new phase of his attack on it with more and concentrated authority, the
high esteem of the President, of the executive warmaking group and of Congress.
It is notable that in none of the criticism, Congressional and outside, has his
Maritime Commission been charged with responsibility for any major defect of
the armament program. And the Truman committee of the Senate singled out
Admiral Land and the commission for unreserved commendation.

The
settlement was announced of this action brought by His Excellency Gaston Henry
Haye, a French citizen and Ambassador of France accredited to the United States
Government during the years 1940 to 1942, of rue Jean Mermoz, Paris, 8e,
against Mr. H. Montgomery Hyde, of Wilton Place, S.W., author, and Hamish
Hamilton Ltd., of Great Russell Street, W.C., publishers, for damages for libel
on pages 95 and 104 of a book entitled The Quiet Canadian.

Mr. David
Hirst, Q.C., appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Brian Neill for the defendants.

WAR
STORY

Mr. Hirst
said that the book related the story of activities in the United States during
the Second World War by British Intelligence, for whom Mr. Montgomery Hyde was
working at that time, and part of the book was devoted to alleged espionage
activities in the plaintiff’s embassy in Washington.

The
plaintiff, now aged 75, served through the first three years of the First World
War on active service in the front line with the 48th Infantry
Division of the French Army. He was wounded, and mentioned five times in
dispatches. Between May, 1917, and May, 1918, he was seconded to the United
States Army as an instructor, and served in this capacity on the staff of a
number of United States Army units in the United States. During the last few
months of the war he returned to active service in Europe and served with the
United States Army at the front. At the end of the war he was made an Officer
of the French Legion of Honour (Military Branch).

Immediately
after the First World War, the plaintiff was a member, together with a number
of French and American Government officials, of the commission entrusted with
the liquidation of claims arising between the United States forces which had
served in France and the French Government, and thereafter he served for two
years as a member of the French Economic Commission in the United States.

In 1928 the
plaintiff was elected a member of the French Chamber of Deputies, and he
remained a member until 1936, when he was elected to the French Senate. During
his years in Parliament he was a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, both
of the Chamber of Deputies and of the Senate.

The
plaintiff also participated actively in joint Franco-British parliamentary
activities, and in 1939 was made a Commander of the Order of the British
Empire.

At the time
of the fall of France in 1940 the plaintiff supported the election of Marshal
Pétain as President, since he believed that any further resistance by the
French Army in France at that period of the war was useless. In that decision
he was by no means alone among patriotic Frenchmen who at that time had just
elected Marshal Pétain with a four-fifths majority.

NO
COLLABORATION

Because of
the plaintiff’s close links with the United States, and his period of service
with the United States forces in the First World War, he was invited by Marshal
Pétain to become French Ambassador in Washington, and he accepted and took up
his post in September 1940. It was hardly necessary to emphasize that that was
a post of extraordinary difficulty and delicacy, but the plaintiff did his
utmost, as was his plain duty, to represent with dignity and honour France and
its Government established at Vichy which was then recognized by the United
States Government as the Government of France. At no time during his
ambassadorship did he collaborate in any way with the Germans. His conduct of
the post was vindicated in his departure from the United States by a letter of
commendation which he received from the Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Sumner
Welles, which stressed his liberal attitude towards the different groups of
Frenchmen in the United States during his ambassadorship.

The
passages in The Quiet Canadian concerning the French Embassy in
Washington seriously reflected upon the plaintiff and were epitomized by the
two sentences specifically complained of in this case, which asserted that the
plaintiff “organized a kind of Gestapo in the embassy to report upon the
activities of supporters of the former French Government and in particular
those who had responded to General de Gaulle’s patriotic call”, and that the
plaintiff and his colleagues in the embassy “were not proud men trying to put a
bold face on defeat, but Nazi hirelings and potential enemies of the United
States”.

Those were
charges of the utmost gravity, particularly having regard to the fact that such
conduct would have amounted to disloyalty to the government of the country to
which he was officially credited.

Those
charges were completely untrue and without foundation. Indeed, apart from this
book, the plaintiff’s patriotism had never been questioned, as indeed was
evident from his postwar history. For, unlike many other representatives and
supporters of the Vichy regime, no charges of unpatriotism or collaboration
with the Germans had ever been preferred against him. Moreover he had lived in
Paris in happy and unmolested retirement throughout the presidency of General
de Gaulle.

The
defendants now recognized that those grave imputations against the plaintiff
were baseless and that they should never have been made. They attended Court by
their counsel to express their apologies to the plaintiff. They had paid to him
a suitable sum in damages to mark the gravity of the libel. They had also given
him a complete indemnity in respect of his legal costs. On those terms the
plaintiff was content to let the matter rest.

Mr. Neill
said that he wished to associate himself with all Mr. Hirst had said. The
defendants now recognized that the imputations against the plaintiff were
unjustified. It was only fair to say, however, that at the time when the book
was written the first defendant by reason of knowledge acquired while working
with the British Intelligence during the Second World War, at a time when much
of Metropolitan France was under German Occupation and no diplomatic relations
existed between the French and British governments, believed that the
statements in the two passages of which the plaintiff complained were true.

They
sincerely regretted any distress or inconvenience that the plaintiff had been
caused and were happy to take this opportunity of expressing their apologies to
him.

Mr. Hirst
said that in those circumstances he asked his Lordship for an order for leave
to withdraw the record, for payment out of the sum of money in Court, and for
payment out to the plaintiff of the sum lodged in Court by way of security for
costs.

“The
documentation and analysis which would illustrate this history are missing”

Charles Maechling, Jr., A Spook Called Intrepid:
The Spy Thriller as Counterfeit History. “Foreign Service Journal, September
1977, pp. 4-5 and pp. 33-34:

“The Stevenson
book is devoid of footnotes, references, and bibliography. No citations are
given for the quotations, which in several cases are obvious inventions. … The
real harm done by fraudulent glamorizations like A Man Called Intrepid
is that they corrupt history”

“One of the most intuitive of the cryptanalysts was
Mavis Lever, who was eighteen when she arrived at Bletchley. She was sent there
because she had studied German at London University. Assigned to work with Knox
at the Cottage, she received her introduction to his arcane labors with the
greeting, “Hello! We’re breaking machines! Have you a pencil? Well, here you
are”. It was Lever who discovered that the baffling hexagram STGOCH did not
stand for “St. Goth”, a place or sanctified soul that none of the pundits had
been able to find in any gazetteer or catalogue of religious names; nor was it
an error for “St. Roch”, a town in France, but instead was an abbreviation for
“Santiago, Chile”. It was also she who sensed something strange in an Italian
Enigma intercept, realized after a moment that the message had not a single “L”
in it and, knowing that the Enigma never replaced a plaintext letter with the
same letter, concluded that the message was a dummy whose plaintext consisted
entirely of “L” ’s. She used this to reconstruct the key. Lever was a member of
the team whose solution of Italian naval Enigma messages led the British to
their victory over the Italian fleet at Cape Matapan – a victory that made the
British masters of the eastern Mediterranean. After the battle Rear Admiral
Godfrey, the director of naval intelligence, rang Naval Section and asked to
speak to Knox. When told he was at home, Godfrey said, “Tell Dilly we have won
a great victory in the Med and it is entirely due to him and his girls”.”

“Professor
Hinsley had never seen any documentation relating to Italian ciphers that BSC
might have sent to England”.

- a pagina 156:

[Sir David Hunt]
“As for Cynthia all can be said about her for certain is that she did not
acquire the Italian naval ciphers”.

- a pagina 230:

[a proposito del codice francese]
“Stephenson claimed, both in the BSC official history and in
several interviews, that the photographs of the ciphers were sent to London
“within twenty-four hours” of Betty’s having obtained them. Professor Sir Harry
Hinsley told me that though Vichy naval codes were used by the Allies in the
landings which took place in November 1943, and for decryption purposes at
Bletchley, they were obtained by the British in another manner”.

- a pagina 347:

[a proposito della credibilità di Sir William Stephenson] “The ultimate fate of the papers retained by Sir William himself was
revealed to me by Professor Hugh Trevor-Roper:

… after the
publication of … The Quiet Canadian, the Head of the Security Service
ordered Stephenson to return all his documents (which he had illegally kept) to
London. … Stephenson replied by burning all the papers – but not before he had
written what he called a summary of them, of which he presented a copy to
William J. Donovan and kept one copy himself. So I presume [that] what is now available
as Stephenson’s papers is this document which is not authentic but is
Stephenson’s own retrospective version of his “achievements” designed to
confirm his own claims.”

“Admiral
Lais’s family then instituted proceedings against Hyde for bringing the name of
the late admiral into disrepute, stating that he would never have betrayed his
country (the family’s case was later upheld in Italian courts).”

“Hyde …
had been putting some thought to the business end of his literary relationship
with Betty and came up with the idea of forming a company, Cynmont, the
amalgamation of the code-names Cynthia and Montgomery.”

- a pagina 313:

È evidente la malafede di Hyde e Cynthia:

“ … Hyde
had spent some time checking out, as far as he was able, those who peopled
Betty’s story in an attempt to discover who was still alive. Most would need to
be disguised for one reason or another”.

“William Stephenson’s 1945 Official History asserts
that among BSC’s most significant achievements was the penetration of the
Italian, French and Spanish embassy staffs in Washington, while thanks to the
amorous activities of agent ‘Cynthia’, both the French and Italian naval
cyphers were obtained. The history also maintains that Cynthia was responsible
for short-circuiting an Italian attempt to scuttle merchant ships interned in
US ports. The SIS files contain nothing about any role Cynthia may have had
against the Italians”